NEW YORK CMGP SANDY 0.7M NPS LIDAR UNITED STATES ... · scan angle, intensity, etc. Created raw...

AIRBORNE LIDAR TASK ORDER REPORT

NEW YORK CMGP SANDY 0.7M NPS LIDAR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

CONTRACT NUMBER: G10PC00057

TASK ORDER NUMBER: G13PD00797 Woolpert Project Number: 73666

October 2014

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP Sandy 0.7m NPS Lidar October 2014 i

PROJECT REPORT

USGS NEW YORK CMGP SANDY LIDAR 0.7M NSP LIDAR PROCESSING

WOOLPERT PROJECT #73666

For:

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

1400 Independence Road Rolla, Missouri 65401

By:

Woolpert 4454 Idea Center Boulevard

Dayton, OH 45430-1500 Tel 937.461.5660

Summary of Contents Section 1 ............................................................................................... Overview

Section 2 ............................................................................................. Acquisition

Section 3 ................................................................................ Lidar Data Processing

Section 4 ................................................................................ Hydrologic Flattening

Section 5 .......................................................................... Final Accuracy Assessment

Section 6 ............................................................................................. Flight Logs

Section 7 .................................................................................... Final Deliverables

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP Sandy 0.7m NPS Lidar October 2014 ii

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Lidar Task Order AOI................................................................... Section 1

Figure 2.1: Lidar Flight Layout, New York/New Jersey Task Orders ......................... Section 2

Figure 3.1: Representative Graph: Combined Separation, Day08114 SH7108_B ........... Section 3

Figure 3.2: Representative Graph: Estimated Positional Accuracy, Day08114 SH7108_B Section 3

Figure 3.3: Representative Graph: PDOP, Day08114 SH7108_B ......................... Section 3

Figure 4.1: Example Hydrologic Breaklines ...................................................... Section 4

Figure 4.2: DEM Generated from Lidar Bare Earth Point Data ................................ Section 4

Figure 4.3: DEM Generated from Lidar with Breaklines ........................................ Section 4

List of Tables Table 2.1: ALS70 LiDAR System Specifications .................................................. Section 2

Table 2.2: Airborne LiDAR Acquisition Flight Summary ........................................ Section 2

Table 3.1: GNSS Base Stations ..................................................................... Section 3

Table 5.1: Overall Vertical Accuracy Statistics .................................................. Section 5

Table 5.2: Swath Quality Check Point Analysis, FVA, UTM 18N, NAD83, NAVD88 GEOID12A, New York CMGP Sandy Lidar .............................................................................. Section 5 Table 5.3: Quality Check Point Analysis, Urban, UTM 18N, NAD83, NAVD88 GEOID12A, New York CMGP Sandy Lidar .................................................................................... Section 5

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP Sandy 0.7m NPS Lidar October 2014 Section 1-1

SECTION 1: OVERVIEW

PROJECT NAME: NEW YORK CMGP SANDY 0.7M NPS LIDAR

WOOLPERT PROJECT #73666

This report contains a comprehensive outline of the New York CMGP Sandy 0.7M NPS Lidar Processing task order for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This task is issued under Contract Number G10PC00057, as task order number G13PD00797. This task order requires lidar data to be acquired over several areas in New York State to include the entire counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, and Queens. Governors, Hoffman, and Swinburne Islands are part of the New York area of interest (AOI), and will be acquired as part of this task order. The total area of the New York Sandy Lidar AOI is approximately 304 square miles. The lidar was collected and processed to meet a maximum Nominal Post Spacing (NPS) of 0.7 meters. The NPS assessment is made against single swath, first return data located within the geometrically usable center portion (typically ~90%) of each swath. This acquisition was part of a larger effort designed to capture one other USGS task order AOI in New Jersey. In addition, Woolpert acquired lidar data of New York City as part of a task order for the NGA. The flight plan for the New York City NGA Lidar task order was developed with 11 additional cross flights over the Manhattan Metropolitan area to minimize data shadowing and data voids in the lidar dataset caused by tall buildings. The lidar data for the NGA task order was acquired between August 5, 2013 and August 15, 2013. USGS requested use of this data from the NGA, in order to reduce the duplication of lidar data acquisition effort on the New York CMGP Sandy Lidar task order. The NGA approved the use of this lidar data for the USGS task order. Following the approval by NGA, Woolpert was able to utilize the cross flights acquired as part of the NGA task order to minimize data shadowing and data voids caused by tall buildings in the USGS New York CMGP Sandy Lidar task order AOI. The cross flights used in the New York CMGP Sandy 0.7M NPS Lidar Processing task order from the NGA New York City task order were flown on August 6, 2013. The lidar data acquisition parameters for this mission are detailed in the lidar processing report for this task order. The data was collected using a Leica ALS70 500 kHz Multiple Pulses in Air (MPiA) lidar sensor installed in a Leica gyro-stabilized PAV30 mount. The ALS70 sensor collects up to four returns per pulse, as well as intensity data, for the first three returns. If a fourth return was captured, the system does not record an associated intensity value. The aerial lidar was collected at the following sensor specifications:

Post Spacing (Minimum): 2.3 ft / 0.7m AGL (Above Ground Level) average flying height: 7,500 ft / 2,286 m MSL (Mean Sea Level) average flying height: variable Average Ground Speed: 150 knots / 173 mph Field of View (full): 32 degrees Pulse Rate: 239 kHz Scan Rate: 41.6 Hz Side Lap (Average): 25%

The data for the 2013 NGA project was collected using a Leica ALS70 500 kHz Multiple Pulses in Air (MPiA) lidar sensor installed in a Leica gyro-stabilized PAV30 mount. The ALS70 sensor collects up to four returns per pulse, as well as intensity data, for the first three returns. If a fourth return was

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP 0.7m NPS Lidar October 2014 Section 1-2

captured, the system does not record an associated intensity value. The aerial lidar was collected at the following sensor specifications:

Post Spacing (Minimum): 3.0ft / 0.91m AGL (Above Ground Level) average flying height: 7,500 ft / 2,286 m MSL (Mean Sea Level) average flying height: variable Average Ground Speed: 150 knots / 173 mph Field of View (full): 40 degrees Pulse Rate: 239 kHz Scan Rate: 36.9 Hz Side Lap (Average): 30%

The lidar data was processed and projected in UTM, Zone 18, North American Datum of 1983 (2011) in units of meters. The vertical datum used for the task order was referenced to NAVD 1988, GEOID12A, in units of meters.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP 0.7m NPS Lidar October 2014 Section 1-3

Figure 1.1 Lidar Task Order AOI


SECTION 2: ACQUISITION The existing lidar data was acquired with a Leica ALS70 500 kHz Multiple Pulses in Air (MPiA) Lidar sensor system, on board a Cessna 402. The ALS70 lidar system, developed by Leica Geosystems of Heerbrugg, Switzerland, includes the simultaneous first, intermediate and last pulse data capture module, the extended altitude range module, and the target signal intensity capture module. The system software is operated on an OC50 Operation Controller aboard the aircraft.

Table 2.1: ALS70 Lidar System Specifications

The ALS70 500 kHz Multiple Pulses in Air (MPiA) Lidar System has the following specifications:

Specification

Operating Altitude 200 – 3,500 meters

Scan Angle 0 to 75 (variable) Swath Width 0 to 1.5 X altitude (variable)

Scan Frequency 0 – 200 Hz (variable based on scan angle)

Maximum Pulse Rate 500 kHz (Effective)

Range Resolution Better than 1 cm

Elevation Accuracy 7 - 16 cm single shot (one standard deviation)

Horizontal Accuracy 5 – 38 cm (one standard deviation)

Number of Returns per Pulse 7 (infinite)

Number of Intensities 3 (first, second, third)

Intensity Digitization 8 bit intensity + 8 bit AGC (Automatic Gain Control) level

MPiA (Multiple Pulses in Air) 8 bits @ 1nsec interval @ 50kHz

Laser Beam Divergence 0.22 mrad @ 1/e2 (~0.15 mrad @ 1/e)

Laser Classification Class IV laser product (FDA CFR 21)

Eye Safe Range 400m single shot depending on laser repetition rate

Roll Stabilization Automatic adaptive, range = 75 degrees minus current FOV

Power Requirements 28 VDC @ 25A

Operating Temperature 0-40C

Humidity 0-95% non-condensing

Supported GNSS Receivers Ashtech Z12, Trimble 7400, Novatel Millenium

Prior to mobilizing to the project site, Woolpert flight crews coordinated with the necessary Air Traffic Control personnel to ensure airspace access.


Woolpert survey crews were onsite, operating a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Base Station for the airborne GPS support. The lidar data was collected in ten (10) separate missions, flown as close together as the weather permitted, to ensure consistent ground conditions across the project area. This acquisition was part of a larger effort designed to capture one other USGS task order AOI in New Jersey.

The cross flights used in the New York CMGP Sandy 0.7M NPS Lidar Processing task order from the NGA New York City task order were flown on August 6, 2013.

An initial quality control process was performed immediately on the lidar data to review the data coverage, airborne GPS data, and trajectory solution. Any gaps found in the Lidar data were relayed to the flight crew, and the area was re-flown.


Figure 2.1: Lidar Flight Layout, 2014 combined NY/NJ Task Orders


Table 2.2: Airborne Lidar Acquisition Flight Summary

Airborne Lidar Acquisition Flight Summary

Date of Mission Lines Flown

Mission Time (UTC)

Wheels Up/

Wheels Down

Mission Time (Local = EDT)

Wheels Up/

Wheels Down

August 6, 2013 – Sensor 7177 NGA T.O. X-Flights 11:25-16:50 7:25AM-12:50PM

March 21, 2014 – Sensor 7108 B7-B25 22:00 – 03:00 06:00PM – 11:00PM

March 22, 2014 – Sensor 7108 A52-A67 17:25 - 20:50 01:25PM – 04:50PM

March 23, 2014 – Sensor 7108 42-51 13:15 – 16:15 09:15AM – 12:15PM

March 26, 2014 – Sensor 7108 A32-A41 23:40 – 03:00 07:40PM – 11:00PM

March 27, 2014 – Sensor 7108 A4-A31, A52-A56, A61 13:10 – 20:40 09:10AM – 04:40PM

April 1, 2014 – Sensor 7108 14-25, 79-94 04:45 – 11:20 12:45PM – 07:20PM

April 1, 2014 – Sensor 7177 2C-3C, 23C-34C, 42C-45C, 67B-69B 18:59 – 22:32 02:59PM – 06:32PM

April 6, 2014 – Sensor 7108 C4, C42-C45, B67-B69, A42-A45, A77 10:24 – 13:20 06:24AM – 09:20AM

April 19, 2014 – Sensor 7177 C5-C10, C34, A96-A99 18:34 – 20:09 02:34PM – 04:09PM

April 21, 2014 – Sensor 7177 B74-B77 22:29 – 23:03 06:29PM – 07:03PM


SECTION 3: LIDAR DATA PROCESSING

APPLICATIONS AND WORK FLOW OVERVIEW

1. Resolved kinematic corrections for three subsystems: inertial measurement unit (IMU), sensor orientation information and airborne GPS data. Developed a blending post-processed aircraft position with attitude data using Kalman filtering technology or the smoothed best estimate trajectory (SBET). Software: POSPac Software v. 5.3, IPAS Pro v.1.35.

2. Calculated laser point position by associating the SBET position to each laser point return time, scan angle, intensity, etc. Created raw laser point cloud data for the entire survey in LAS format. Automated line-to-line calibrations were then performed for system attitude parameters (pitch, roll, heading), mirror flex (scale) and GPS/IMU drift. Software: ALS Post Processing Software v.2.75 build #25, Proprietary Software, TerraMatch v. 14.01.

3. Imported processed LAS point cloud data into the task order tiles. Resulting data were classified as ground and non-ground points with additional filters created to meet the task order classification specifications. Statistical absolute accuracy was assessed via direct comparisons of ground classified points to ground RTK survey data. Based on the statistical analysis, the Lidar data was then adjusted to reduce the vertical bias when compared to the survey ground control.

Software: TerraScan v.14.011.

4. The LAS files were evaluated through a series of manual QA/QC steps to eliminate remaining artifacts from the ground class. Software: TerraScan v.14.011.

GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GNSS)-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT UNIT (IMU) TRAJECTORY PROCESSING

EQUIPMENT

Flight navigation during the Lidar data acquisition mission is performed using IGI CCNS (Computer Controlled Navigation System). The pilots are skilled at maintaining their planned trajectory, while holding the aircraft steady and level. If atmospheric conditions are such that the trajectory, ground speed, roll, pitch and/or heading cannot be properly maintained, the mission is aborted until suitable conditions occur. The aircraft are all configured with a NovAtel Millennium 12-channel, L1/L2 dual frequency Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers collecting at 2 Hz. All Woolpert aerial sensors are equipped with a Litton LN200 series Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) operating at 200 Hz.


A base-station unit was mobilized for each acquisition mission, and was operated by a member of the Woolpert acquisition team. Each base-station setup consisted of one Trimble 4000 – 5000 series dual frequency receiver, one Trimble Compact L1/L2 dual frequency antenna, one 2-meter fixed-height tripod, and essential battery power and cabling. Ground planes were used on the base-station antennas. Data was collected at 1 or 2 Hz. Woolpert’s acquisition team was on site, operating GNSS base stations at the Trenton Mercer Airport (KTTN), along with utilizing NJJ2, NJTP, NYBP, and NJTR CORS stations. For the 2013 NGA Task Order collection, Woolpert’s acquisition team was onsite, operating a (GNSS) Base Station for the ground control at Essex County Airport (KCDW) for the airborne GPS support.

The GNSS base station operated during the lidar acquisition missions are listed below:

Table 3.1: GNSS Base Station

Station Latitude Longitude Ellipsoid Height (L1

Phase center)

Name (DMS) (DMS) (Meters)

KCDW Airport Base 40°52’32.95791" 74°16’45.30356" -19.870

KTTN Airport Base 40°16'51.15372" 74°48'34.15158" 25.786

KTTN Airport Base 2 40°16'51.18651" 74°48'34.18759" 25.907

NJI2 CORS 40°44'29.30552" 74°10'39.72659" 18.006

NJTP CORS 40°32'25.84158" 74°28'04.13510" 0.438

NYBP CORS 40°42'03.81687" 74°00'51.54905" -14.385

NJTR CORS 40°16'51.18651" 74°48'34.18759" 41.360

DATA PROCESSING

All airborne GNSS and IMU data was post-processed and quality controlled using Applanix MMS software. GNSS data was processed at a 1 and 2 Hz data capture rate and the IMU data was processed at 200 Hz.

TRAJECTORY QUALITY

The GNSS Trajectory, along with high quality IMU data are key factors in determining the overall positional accuracy of the final sensor data. Within the trajectory processing, there are many factors that affect the overall quality, but the most indicative are the Combined Separation, the Estimated Positional Accuracy, and the Positional Dilution of Precision (PDOP).


Combined Separation

The Combined Separation is a measure of the difference between the forward run and the backward run solution of the trajectory. The Kalman filter is processed in both directions to remove the combined directional anomalies. In general, when these two solutions match closely, an optimally accurate reliable solution is achieved.

Woolpert’s goal is to maintain a Combined Separation Difference of less than ten (10) centimeters. In most cases we achieve results below this threshold.

Figure 3.1: Combined Separation, Day08114 SH7108_B


Estimated Positional Accuracy

The Estimated Positional Accuracy plots the standard deviations of the east, north, and vertical directions along a time scale of the trajectory. It illustrates loss of satellite lock issues, as well as issues arising from long baselines, noise, and/or other atmospheric interference.

Woolpert’s goal is to maintain an Estimated Positional Accuracy of less than ten (10) centimeters, often achieving results well below this threshold.

Figure 3.2: Estimated Positional Accuracy, Day08114 SH7108_B


PDOP

The PDOP measures the precision of the GPS solution in regards to the geometry of the satellites acquired and used for the solution.

Woolpert’s goal is to maintain an average PDOP value below 3.0. Brief periods of PDOP over 3.0 are acceptable due to the calibration and control process if other metrics are within specification.

Figure 3.3: PDOP, Day08114 SH7108_B


LIDAR DATA PROCESSING

When the sensor calibration, data acquisition, and GPS processing phases were complete, the formal data reduction processes by Woolpert Lidar specialists included:

Processed individual flight lines to derive a raw “Point Cloud” LAS file. Matched overlapping flight lines, generated statistics for evaluation comparisons, and made the necessary adjustments to remove any residual systematic error.

Calibrated LAS files were imported into the task order tiles and initially filtered to create a

ground and non-ground class. Then additional classes were filtered as necessary to meet client specified classes.

Once all project data was imported and classified, survey ground control data was imported

and calculated for an accuracy assessment. As a QC measure, Woolpert has developed a routine to generate accuracy statistical reports by comparisons against the TIN and the DEM using surveyed ground control of higher accuracy. The Lidar is adjusted accordingly to meet or exceed the vertical accuracy requirements.

The Lidar tiles were reviewed using a series of proprietary QA/QC procedures to ensure it fulfills the task order requirements. A portion of this requires a manual step to ensure anomalies have been removed from the ground class.

The Lidar LAS files are classified into the Default (Class 1), Ground (Class 2), Noise (Class 7), Water (Class 9), Ignored Ground (Class 10), Overlap default (Class 17), and Overlap Ground (Class 18) classifications.

FGDC Compliant metadata was developed for the task order in .xml format for the final data

products.

The horizontal datum used for the task order was referenced to UTM18N American Datum of 1983 (2011). The vertical datum used for the task order was referenced to NAVD 1988, meters, GEOID12A. Coordinate positions were specified in units of meters.


SECTION 4: HYDROLOGIC FLATTENING

HYDROLOGIC FLATTENING OF LIDAR DEM DATA

New York CMGP Sandy 0.7m NPS Lidar Processing task order required the compilation of breaklines defining water bodies and rivers. The breaklines were used to perform the hydrologic flattening of water bodies, and gradient hydrologic flattening of double line streams and rivers. Lakes, reservoirs and ponds, at a minimum size of 2-acres or greater, were compiled as closed polygons. The closed water bodies were collected at a constant elevation. Rivers and streams, at a nominal minimum width of 30.5 meters (100 feet), were compiled in the direction of flow with both sides of the stream maintaining an equal gradient elevation.

LIDAR DATA REVIEW AND PROCESSING

Woolpert utilized the following steps to hydrologically flatten the water bodies and for gradient hydrologic flattening of the double line streams within the existing lidar data.

1. Woolpert used the newly acquired lidar data to manually draw the hydrologic features in a 2D environment using the lidar intensity and bare earth surface. Open Source imagery was used as reference when necessary.

2. Woolpert utilizes an integrated software approach to combine the lidar data and 2D breaklines. This process “drapes” the 2D breaklines onto the 3D lidar surface model to assign an elevation. A monotonic process is performed to ensure the streams are consistently flowing in a gradient manner. A secondary step within the program verifies an equally matching elevation of both stream edges. The breaklines that characterize the closed water bodies are draped onto the 3D lidar surface and assigned a constant elevation at or just below ground elevation.

3. The lakes, reservoirs and ponds, at a minimum size of 2-acres or greater, were compiled as closed polygons. Figure 4.1 illustrates a good example of 2-acre lakes and 30.5 meters (100 feet) nominal streams identified and defined with hydrologic breaklines. The breaklines defining rivers and streams, at a nominal minimum width of 30.5 meters (100 feet), were draped with both sides of the stream maintaining an equal gradient elevation.

Figure 4.1

4. All ground points were reclassified from inside the hydrologic feature polygons to water, class nine (9).


5. All ground points were reclassified from within a buffer along the hydrologic feature breaklines to buffered ground, class ten (10).

6. The lidar ground points and hydrologic feature breaklines were used to generate a new digital elevation model (DEM).

Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3

Figure 4.2 reflects a DEM generated from original lidar bare earth point data prior to the hydrologic flattening process. Note the “tinning” across the lake surface.

Figure 4.3 reflects a DEM generated from lidar with breaklines compiled to define the hydrologic features. This figure illustrates the results of adding the breaklines to hydrologically flatten the DEM data. Note the smooth appearance of the lake surface in the DEM.

Terrascan was used to add the hydrologic breakline vertices and export the lattice models. The hydrologically flattened DEM data was provided to USGS in ERDAS .IMG format at a 1-meter cell size. The hydrologic breaklines compiled as part of the flattening process were provided to the USGS as an ESRI shapefile. The breaklines defining the water bodies greater than 2-acres were provided as a PolygonZ file. The breaklines compiled for the gradient flattening of all rivers and streams at a nominal minimum width of 30.5 meters (100 feet) were provided as a PolylineZ file.

DATA QA/QC

Initial QA/QC for this task order was performed in Global Mapper v15, by reviewing the grids and hydrologic breakline features. Additionally, ESRI software and proprietary methods were used to review the overall connectivity of the hydrologic breaklines.

Edits and corrections were addressed individually by tile. If a water body breakline needed to be adjusted to improve the flattening of the DEM data, the area was cross referenced by tile number, corrected accordingly, a new DEM file was regenerated and reviewed.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) New York CMGP Sandy 0.7m NPS LiDAR October 2014 Section 5-1

SECTION 5: FINAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT

FINAL VERTICAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT

The vertical accuracy statistics were calculated by comparison of the liDAR bare earth points to the ground surveyed quality check points.

Table 5.1: Overall Vertical Accuracy Statistics

Average error -0.003 meters

Minimum error -0.110 meters

Maximum error 0.090 meters

Root mean square 0.053 meters

Standard deviation 0.055 meters

Table 5.2: Swath Quality Check Point Analysis, FVA, UTM 18N, NAD83, NAVD88 GEOID12A, New York CMGP Sandy Lidar

Point ID

Easting

(UTM meters) Northing

(UTM meters)

TIN Elevation

(meters) Dz

(meters)

2008 600937 4524448 2.33 ‐0.11

2009 590996.1 4514951 5.12 ‐0.04

2010 606819.7 4510672 37.19 0

2011 606788.5 4494752 1.98 ‐0.02

2012 591589.1 4490492 1.87 0.01

2013 600743.9 4502504 5.04 ‐0.09

2013A 600744.7 4502505 5.03 ‐0.05

2014 584458.9 4494371 3.97 0.04

2015 586184.6 4505653 4.44 0.09

2016 575258.9 4499506 6.66 0.05

2017 568709 4485599 5.78 0.05

4 568348.7 4493359 6.14 0.09

9 593116 4526757 6.71 ‐0.025

11 601169 4524962 1.46 ‐0.024

21 595090.2 4521315 13.62 0.015


Point ID

Easting


(UTM meters)

TIN Elevation

(meters) Dz

(meters)

24 597720.9 4502793 7.3 ‐0.024

BEOT2 573190 4497744 6.32 ‐0.005

BEOT3 569059.6 4494843 3.08 ‐0.056

BEOT6 576676.5 4494900 34.8 0.04

VERTICAL ACCURACY CONCLUSIONS

LAS Swath Fundamental Vertical Accuracy (FVA) Tested 0.103 meters fundamental vertical accuracy at 95 percent confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, in open terrain in open using (RMSEz) x 1.9600, tested against the TIN.

Bare-Earth DEM Fundamental Vertical Accuracy (FVA) Tested 0.121 meters fundamental vertical accuracy at a 95 percent confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, in open terrain using (RMSEz) x 1.96000 Tested against the DEM.

SUPPLEMENTAL VERTICAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS

Table 5.3: Quality Check Point Analysis, Urban, UTM 18N, NAD83, NAVD88 GEOID12A, New York

CMGP Sandy Lidar

Point ID

Easting


(UTM meters)

DEM Elevation

(meters) Abs. Dz (meters)

3008 597011.020 4526525.440 41.710 0.030

3009 592590.140 4514710.820 4.500 0.060

3010 607295.080 4510823.430 37.470 0.120

3011 606799.750 4494724.080 1.970 0.100

3012 591527.290 4490354.040 2.370 0.000

3013 600685.990 4502554.140 3.940 0.130

3013A 600685.980 4502554.470 3.940 0.080

3014 584540.930 4494297.640 2.920 0.030

3015 586189.850 4505712.490 3.640 0.020

3016 576977.450 4499961.600 2.680 0.010


Point ID

Easting


(UTM meters)

DEM Elevation

(meters) Abs. Dz (meters)

3017 568044.320 4485026.640 2.090 0.050

13 591900.063 4511322.728 28.420 0.026

15 587554.966 4502664.672 45.880 0.085

17 585591.269 4492976.788 3.220 0.011

20 591753.231 4520229.610 10.750 0.018

22 586838.413 4514154.127 23.530 0.047

URBAN2 570265.476 4490308.485 4.140 0.008

URBAN3 573166.325 4497727.768 6.440 0.042

URBAN4 576709.115 4494871.248 34.020 0.055

URBAN5 568302.370 4494832.294 2.680 0.030

URBAN1 564460.141 4486160.862 9.310 0.053

URBAN2 565214.020 4484771.097 17.470 0.015

URBAN6 584005.633 4500213.628 38.300 0.002

URBAN7 595429.875 4500636.579 4.030 0.062

URBAN10 590544.815 4503752.562 16.040 0.061

ACCURACY CONCLUSIONS

Urban Land Cover Classification Supplemental Vertical Accuracy (SVA) Tested 0.116 meters supplemental vertical accuracy at the 95th percentile, tested against the DEM. Urban Errors larger than 95th percentile include:

Point 3010, Easting 607295.08, Northing 4510823.43, Z-Error 0.120 meters



CONSOLIDATED VERTICAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT ACCURACY CONCLUSIONS

Consolidated Vertical Accuracy (CVA) Tested 0.116 meters consolidated vertical accuracy at the 95th percentile level, tested against the DEM. Consolidated errors larger than 95th percentile include:




Approved By: Title Name Signature Date

Associate LiDAR Specialist Certified Photogrammetrist #1281

Qian Xiao

October 2014


SECTION 6: FLIGHT LOGS

FLIGHT LOGS

Flight logs for the project are shown on the following pages.


SECTION 7: FINAL DELIVERABLES

FINAL DELIVERABLES

The final liDAR deliverables are listed below.

LAS v1.2 classified point cloud LAS v1.2 raw unclassified point cloud flight line strips no greater than 2GB. Long swaths greater

than 2GB will be split into segments) Hydrologically flattened Polygon z and Polyline z shapefiles Hydrologically flattened bare earth 1-meter DEM in ERDAS .IMG format 8-bit gray scale intensity images Tile layout and data extent provided as ESRI shapefile Control points provided as ESRI shapefile FGDC compliant metadata per product in XML format LiDAR processing report in pdf format Survey report in pdf format

NEW YORK CMGP SANDY 0.7M NPS LIDAR UNITED STATES ... · scan angle, intensity, etc. Created raw...

Documents

Transcript of NEW YORK CMGP SANDY 0.7M NPS LIDAR UNITED STATES ... · scan angle, intensity, etc. Created raw...